Home » ... » Evidence for an Issue
Evidence for an Issue 3 pieces of evidence for this issue.
| non-automated pilot tasks may not be integrated - Automation designers may leave pilots to do the tasks that cannot be automated. The pilots may be left with a set of poorly integrated tasks that are difficult to perform well.
|
-
|
Evidence Type: |
Excerpt from Survey |
|
Evidence: |
16 of the 30 (53%) respondents reported a 4 (= agree) or 5 (= strongly agree) with pc153 non-automated pilot tasks may not be integrated
|
|
Strength: |
+3 |
|
Aircraft: |
unspecified |
|
Equipment: |
automation |
|
Source: |
Lyall, E., Niemczyk, M. & Lyall, R. (1996). Evidence for flightdeck automation problems: A survey of experts.
See Resource details
|
-
|
Evidence Type: |
Excerpt from Survey |
|
Evidence: |
9 of the 30 (30%) respondents reported a 1 (=strongly disagree) or a 2 (=disagree) with pc153 non-automated pilot tasks may not be integrated
|
|
Strength: |
-2 |
|
Aircraft: |
unspecified |
|
Equipment: |
automation |
|
Source: |
Lyall, E., Niemczyk, M. & Lyall, R. (1996). Evidence for flightdeck automation problems: A survey of experts.
See Resource details
|
-
|
Evidence Type: |
Excerpt from Survey |
|
Evidence: |
"Because of missing capacity and redundancy of the ECAM, switching from screen to paper checklist and vice versa was also considered as potentially confusing."
(page 11.11) |
|
Strength: |
+1 |
|
Aircraft: |
A310 |
|
Equipment: |
EICAS (ECAM) |
|
Source: |
Speyer, J.J., Monteil, C., Blomberg, R.D., & Fouillot, J.P. (1990). Impact of New Technology on Operational Interface: From Design Aims to Flight Evaluation and Measurement. Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development No. 301, Vol. 1.
See Resource details
|
|